Talk:Art Asylum
Could an article be created on Art Asylum's Enterprise NX-01 model? Tough Little Ship 13:40, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I'm not sure that every individual model or toy needs a page -- for example, all the Hallmark ornaments should be listed on the Hallmark page, rather than creating a new article for each of them. :When all the novels and comics got to be too much to try and list on those toplevel parent pages, the next step would be to sort them by series. (Comics disambiguates to Star Trek (Marvel), Star Trek (DC volume 1) and so forth). :If this article becomes disambiguated, the information about the toy and models could be moved to Star Trek: Enterprise (Art Asylum), Star Trek: The Original Series (Art Asylum), so on and so forth under parent disambiguation Star Trek (Art Asylum). :If we start listing the toys and models, we should probably try to just include brief notes about what the toy was -- however, if a company has produced enough toys it will need to be broken down into a few pages. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk Starship Legends photos Despite having gone to the trouble of finding and assembling the DST starship photos and release list, I have no problem if someone wants to turn the 7 collages into 26 separate individual photos. I think it's overkill but if someone wants to do the work, by all means go ahead. Adding a photo that's already there (IDENTICAL Bounty photo) without separating the collages is not a very good solution, IMO. It just makes things confusing to have competing gallery structures. The Bounty in question is an identical re-release of the 2013 version so no new pic is required, IMO. In all but one case (see-thru Ent), each collage shows variants of the very same model, that's why I structured it that way. Perhaps adding identifying text to the collages might be a better solution. Is there any consensus on this? Darth Duranium (talk) 22:30, February 11, 2014 (UTC) :Right now, the whole article is confusing and hard to read. There is no real structure which would make it easy to have an overview. I've added the image in question and found no info that this is a re-release. The gallery at the bottom of the page is also confusing as there are no real descriptions for the images. I think this article needs an overhaul. Tom (talk) 23:10, February 11, 2014 (UTC) :::Agreed Thomas, the article is confusing; I've just added the ships because they weren't there beforehand and left the rest alone, apart from grammar and logos. The DST Bounty was set for release in Oct. 2013 but maybe that slipped to 2014. I can add text to the collages to identify each version of the ship in question but I ain't gonna add 26 individual pics! They've really only produced 7 models in slightly differing variants and they're all listed above the gallery. :::Another issue: the article is missing a lot of info for later years. Collectible ships are my thing so I was happy to update that department but I know very little about the rest. Darth Duranium (talk) 02:00, February 12, 2014 (UTC) ::::OK Tom, I added captions to the collages so that should alleviate the confusion! I've removed your Bounty pic as it was already covered in the KBoP shot. I updated the Bounty's release date to 2014, too. Cheers. Darth Duranium (talk) 01:06, February 13, 2014 (UTC)